Spooky Tooth

Fair enough. My gut agrees with your premise. I haven't felt NU has had a coherent, year-to-year recruiting plan since 98. While I like the organization and effort this staff has in recruiting I need to see how this class and '17 closes out.

Not disagreeing with you but what are you using for this? I like 247 composite for its reliability. The others are less useful since they tend to undervalue kids who don't go to their camps.

If some on the board could drop their irrational dislike for the current staff, the answer is kinda simple. The roster is talented and deep in some positions (interior defensive players, wide receivers) and thin and less talented in others (QB, DE, LB). The roster is good in some spots and not so good in others. Does that make it talented or not talented, and how the hell do you decide? According to some Nostradomi on this board roster depth and quality is the fault solely and exclusively of the current staff. I would include the intellectual giant who, in another thread, predicted the current staff will be gone next year. Pretty simple: with similarly talented rosters, a fired coach won north of .700 of his games here. Only when a coach comes in and lays an egg against a very easy schedule do we hear that the talent isn't there to continue 9+ win seasons. Of course, that's not what was said at the time of the firing last year. And it's not the case today, either. The roster isn't perfect, but it's far better than the results that were wrung out of it. Now cue: we only won last year because of a single player arguments. Wait, a similar roster included the loss of one of the best running backs in Nebraska history, and a record setting wide receiver? How many close games last season did AA win? Not trying to be snarky but that argument is ridiculous although I have heard a few on the board make that claim, usually as a reason to trash the current staff. Right on cue! Funny, I thought the same thing when I read this piece of wisdom: "Coaching transitions from bad coaches to good coaches are usually easy. Transitions from good coaches to bad coaches, not so much."

I think purely from a talent perspective (not including the coaching or any other outside factors like staff changes/injuries) this is an 8-win team. Coaching and the right circumstances probably could've had them as a conference title contender or a 4-5 win team. We obviously saw the latter. I don't want that to come off as me saying bad coaching led to the season the team had. While they coaches are certainly culpable and made mistakes this year, I also believe coaching transitions can sometimes be rough and that doesn't necessarily mean the coaches are bad. Coaching transitions from bad coaches to good coaches are usually easy. Transitions from good coaches to bad coaches, not so much.

If some on the board could drop their irrational dislike for the current staff, the answer is kinda simple. The roster is talented and deep in some positions (interior defensive players, wide receivers) and thin and less talented in others (QB, DE, LB). The roster is good in some spots and not so good in others. Does that make it talented or not talented, and how the hell do you decide? According to some Nostradomi on this board roster depth and quality is the fault solely and exclusively of the current staff. I would include the intellectual giant who, in another thread, predicted the current staff will be gone next year. Pretty simple: with similarly talented rosters, a fired coach won north of .700 of his games here. Only when a coach comes in and lays an egg against a very easy schedule do we hear that the talent isn't there to continue 9+ win seasons. Of course, that's not what was said at the time of the firing last year. And it's not the case today, either. The roster isn't perfect, but it's far better than the results that were wrung out of it. Now cue: we only won last year because of a single player arguments. Wait, a similar roster included the loss of one of the best running backs in Nebraska history, and a record setting wide receiver? How many close games last season did AA win? Not trying to be snarky but that argument is ridiculous although I have heard a few on the board make that claim, usually as a reason to trash the current staff.

If some on the board could drop their irrational dislike for the current staff, the answer is kinda simple. The roster is talented and deep in some positions (interior defensive players, wide receivers) and thin and less talented in others (QB, DE, LB). The roster is good in some spots and not so good in others. Does that make it talented or not talented, and how the hell do you decide? According to some Nostradomi on this board roster depth and quality is the fault solely and exclusively of the current staff. I would include the intellectual giant who, in another thread, predicted the current staff will be gone next year.

Dunno, but would be interesting to hear.

Your logic must be flawed because it doesn't condemn the current staff. Now if you could only produce a pic of Riley behind the grassy knoll......

Son of a gun..... http://journalstar.com/sports/huskers/football/2015/lesson-learned-defense-not-so-simple-after-all/article_07b22db3-c0b7-5efb-859d-11b0306e5d13.html https://nebraska.n.rivals.com/news/new-defense-not-as-simple-as-originally-thought

If this staff has another year similar to this one, they won't get a third year. Taking over a program that had won 9/10 for seven seasons, then immediately going 5-7 is an unacceptable transition. Your obsession with the current staff borders on irrational.

Why? Cook threw for over 300 yards and 4TD's with 1 pick. And lost. If it's a high school defense he faced he should have won the game going away.

Are you refusing to acknowledge the gist of the article? What do YOU think Banker is saying in it? That he is AGAINST simple, he hates having only chocolate and vanilla? My guess is that you hit F3 and when it didn't highlight the word "simple" you hung your whole argument on that and hoped nobody else read it. Fail. Anyhow, regardless of what Banker said, we have what Banker did. Some people liked it, some didn't, and those are opinions, so they really can't be argued. The Miami quarterback thought the defense was simple, and since he lined up across from it and had success playing against it with such an opinion, I'll take his word for it. You don't have to agree with his opinion, naturally. Fair question. I think Banker had looked at BP's scheme and realized the D line was under-utilized, the linebackers were paralyzed and the DBs were being asked to carry the load. I absolutely think Banker wanted to simplify the defensive scheme. My beef actually started in post #3. I object to the "we" and the statement that the staff lied to "us". GBRedneck took over from there. And BTW, I think Connor Cook might disagree with Brad Kayaa.

Agree 100%. This staff has been in place for years and must be held accountable for decades (since 2001) of mismanagement. Yeah. Can you list some of this mismanagement - or is it just a generic comment to cover your agenda? Pure sarcasm, hence the "yeah" and "right" at the end of my post. The poster I was responding to never misses a chance to take a shot at the new staff.

Do you have a tapeworm? A turd in your pocket? Who is "we"? Gerry stated that the defense was simplified Banker addressed that by stating that the D was not going to be all that simple. Now I'll wait for you to show any proof that any member of the staff said that the defense was going to be more simple. http://nebraska.247sports.com/Bolt/Banker-favors-simple-aggressive-scheme-34579005 And there's a lot more where that came from. You're making this too easy for me. Note the bolded above. I carefully avoided saying that Banker said the defensive scheme was going to be simple, so you can cherry-pick your stories all you want to. Banker has said many times that he wanted to D to be simpler and faster. He never said simple. BP's scheme and Banker's scheme differ in so many ways, not the least of which was where the plays were intended to be forced. Back at ya: http://journalstar.com/sports/huskers/life-in-the-red/banker-weighs-in-on-easy-scheme-talk/article_5ccc3932-4436-11e5-8ba4-339018a4509d.html Your turn...... “And I’d have cohorts of mine say, ‘Hey, how do you guys get away with playing one front and two coverages?’ ” Banker recalled. “And I’d say, ‘Well, I don’t necessarily have an answer for that, but more is not necessarily better sometimes.’ ” http://www.omaha.com/huskers/banker-s-plan-keep-husker-defense-simple-and-fast/article_a5e63ed1-06e0-593b-b7b1-cd4d038a79c8.html ''You still have to do your assignment. It's not all free reign,'' he said. ''But it's free reign as far as what you do to get to your assignment, if that makes sense.'' Banker said, ''I hear the players say, `Hey, we're free in the system,' or the system is like being in elementary school or something like that. I don't know whether to take it as a compliment or `you don't know what you're doing.' I'm glad they feel good about it, whatever it is.'' http://www.si.com/college-football/2015/04/02/ap-fbc-nebraska-banker This is really silly. I challenged you to find one quote, anywhere, where Banker or any member of the staff said the D scheme was going to be simple and the best you can do is quotes that don't even address it. So keep posting irrelevant articles that don't address my challenge, and I'll match you with articles that refute you. You know what is really weird? I have had problems with some of the play-calling, almost all of which was offensive. But you have such an irrational agenda against this staff that I refuse to agree with anything you post. You remind me of a psycho girlfriend who can't let go..... You don't think the quote I posted shows Banker claiming his defense is simple? He's bragging about only having one front and two coverages. But keep moving the goalposts if it makes you feel better. Not sure how to move goal posts so I'll ask an expert: GBRedneck, how do you move goalposts? Oh, let the record show that you STILL haven't come up with a source stating that Banker or any member of the staff said the scheme was going to be simple>>>>>>>>>that goalpost hasn't budged. Your turn. So you're looking for an exact quote of "the scheme was going to be simple"? The quote I just gave had Banker bragging about his 1 front-2 coverages defense. He was touting the simplicity. You're moving the goalposts. Also, from January on, the media line was "Banker to simplify the D". Banker did nothing to dispute that, in fact he seemed quite proud of it. Until Banderas made the "high school" comment. Then he went into damage control. And now everyone sees you exposed. Every single post I asked you to provide a source where Banker or any member of the staff said the scheme was going to be simple. Every. Single. Post. No one, least of all me, disputed that Banker wanted to simplify the defense from BP's paralysis-by-analysis. What got me started in this sorry ass chain of exchanges with you was the assertion that Banker said it was going to be simple. THAT WAS NEVER SAID BY BANKER. By Bando, yes. By Gerry, yes, By Collins and Valentine, yes. Banker or the staff, no. But you knew that. I cited sources where Banker responded to the players by saying that it wasn't as simple as they thought. You knew that all along, which is why after three demands by me to cite your source you always dodged it, moved the goalposts, so to speak. I could have just ended this a while back and stopped responding to your trolling, something you have been called out for on this board previously. Maybe I should have. For sure I'm done with you for now because you're boring me. But understand this, the next time you troll, me or someone else is going to call you out, not necessarily because I disagree with some point you're making, but because your agenda has no reason, no balance and no place on a board for fans of Nebraska sports. Banker didn't dispute the multitude of "simple" claims from January on until Bando made the "high school" comment in the fall. And I gave you a January quote where Banker not only claimed his D was simple, but he bragged about it. Okay, I changed my mind..... You're lying again. "Banker didn't dispute the multitude of "simple" claims from January on until Bando made the "high school" comment in the fall." Fascinating, but help me find where Banker said the scheme was going to be simple. "And I gave you a January quote where Banker not only claimed his D was simple, but he bragged about it." I'll make a deal with you......Here's your link to the article. Show me anywhere in it where Banker said the scheme was going to be simple, and I'll do a mea cupla, admit I was wrong, and move on. A direct quote, that's all I want out of you. http://www.omaha.com/huskers/banker-s-plan-keep-husker-defense-simple-and-fast/article_a5e63ed1-06e0-593b-b7b1-cd4d038a79c8.html Now it's your turn to come back and act surprised that I want your source showing a direct quote...... I gave you a direct quote where he was bragging about how simple his 1 front-2coverages defense is. If your claim is that he never spoke the exact phrase "The scheme is going to be simple" then I cannot disprove your claim. If you want to claim that Banker didn't ride in basking in how aggressive the D would be with his simpler attacking D, then I already proved your wrong. Thanks for playing.

Do you have a tapeworm? A turd in your pocket? Who is "we"? Gerry stated that the defense was simplified Banker addressed that by stating that the D was not going to be all that simple. Now I'll wait for you to show any proof that any member of the staff said that the defense was going to be more simple. http://nebraska.247sports.com/Bolt/Banker-favors-simple-aggressive-scheme-34579005 And there's a lot more where that came from. You're making this too easy for me. Note the bolded above. I carefully avoided saying that Banker said the defensive scheme was going to be simple, so you can cherry-pick your stories all you want to. Banker has said many times that he wanted to D to be simpler and faster. He never said simple. BP's scheme and Banker's scheme differ in so many ways, not the least of which was where the plays were intended to be forced. Back at ya: http://journalstar.com/sports/huskers/life-in-the-red/banker-weighs-in-on-easy-scheme-talk/article_5ccc3932-4436-11e5-8ba4-339018a4509d.html Your turn...... “And I’d have cohorts of mine say, ‘Hey, how do you guys get away with playing one front and two coverages?’ ” Banker recalled. “And I’d say, ‘Well, I don’t necessarily have an answer for that, but more is not necessarily better sometimes.’ ” http://www.omaha.com/huskers/banker-s-plan-keep-husker-defense-simple-and-fast/article_a5e63ed1-06e0-593b-b7b1-cd4d038a79c8.html ''You still have to do your assignment. It's not all free reign,'' he said. ''But it's free reign as far as what you do to get to your assignment, if that makes sense.'' Banker said, ''I hear the players say, `Hey, we're free in the system,' or the system is like being in elementary school or something like that. I don't know whether to take it as a compliment or `you don't know what you're doing.' I'm glad they feel good about it, whatever it is.'' http://www.si.com/college-football/2015/04/02/ap-fbc-nebraska-banker This is really silly. I challenged you to find one quote, anywhere, where Banker or any member of the staff said the D scheme was going to be simple and the best you can do is quotes that don't even address it. So keep posting irrelevant articles that don't address my challenge, and I'll match you with articles that refute you. You know what is really weird? I have had problems with some of the play-calling, almost all of which was offensive. But you have such an irrational agenda against this staff that I refuse to agree with anything you post. You remind me of a psycho girlfriend who can't let go..... You don't think the quote I posted shows Banker claiming his defense is simple? He's bragging about only having one front and two coverages. But keep moving the goalposts if it makes you feel better. Not sure how to move goal posts so I'll ask an expert: GBRedneck, how do you move goalposts? Oh, let the record show that you STILL haven't come up with a source stating that Banker or any member of the staff said the scheme was going to be simple>>>>>>>>>that goalpost hasn't budged. Your turn. So you're looking for an exact quote of "the scheme was going to be simple"? The quote I just gave had Banker bragging about his 1 front-2 coverages defense. He was touting the simplicity. You're moving the goalposts. Also, from January on, the media line was "Banker to simplify the D". Banker did nothing to dispute that, in fact he seemed quite proud of it. Until Banderas made the "high school" comment. Then he went into damage control. And now everyone sees you exposed. Every single post I asked you to provide a source where Banker or any member of the staff said the scheme was going to be simple. Every. Single. Post. No one, least of all me, disputed that Banker wanted to simplify the defense from BP's paralysis-by-analysis. What got me started in this sorry ass chain of exchanges with you was the assertion that Banker said it was going to be simple. THAT WAS NEVER SAID BY BANKER. By Bando, yes. By Gerry, yes, By Collins and Valentine, yes. Banker or the staff, no. But you knew that. I cited sources where Banker responded to the players by saying that it wasn't as simple as they thought. You knew that all along, which is why after three demands by me to cite your source you always dodged it, moved the goalposts, so to speak. I could have just ended this a while back and stopped responding to your trolling, something you have been called out for on this board previously. Maybe I should have. For sure I'm done with you for now because you're boring me. But understand this, the next time you troll, me or someone else is going to call you out, not necessarily because I disagree with some point you're making, but because your agenda has no reason, no balance and no place on a board for fans of Nebraska sports. Banker didn't dispute the multitude of "simple" claims from January on until Bando made the "high school" comment in the fall. And I gave you a January quote where Banker not only claimed his D was simple, but he bragged about it. Okay, I changed my mind..... You're lying again. "Banker didn't dispute the multitude of "simple" claims from January on until Bando made the "high school" comment in the fall." Fascinating, but help me find where Banker said the scheme was going to be simple. "And I gave you a January quote where Banker not only claimed his D was simple, but he bragged about it." I'll make a deal with you......Here's your link to the article. Show me anywhere in it where Banker said the scheme was going to be simple, and I'll do a mea cupla, admit I was wrong, and move on. A direct quote, that's all I want out of you. http://www.omaha.com/huskers/banker-s-plan-keep-husker-defense-simple-and-fast/article_a5e63ed1-06e0-593b-b7b1-cd4d038a79c8.html Now it's your turn to come back and act surprised that I want your source showing a direct quote......

Do you have a tapeworm? A turd in your pocket? Who is "we"? Gerry stated that the defense was simplified Banker addressed that by stating that the D was not going to be all that simple. Now I'll wait for you to show any proof that any member of the staff said that the defense was going to be more simple. http://nebraska.247sports.com/Bolt/Banker-favors-simple-aggressive-scheme-34579005 And there's a lot more where that came from. You're making this too easy for me. Note the bolded above. I carefully avoided saying that Banker said the defensive scheme was going to be simple, so you can cherry-pick your stories all you want to. Banker has said many times that he wanted to D to be simpler and faster. He never said simple. BP's scheme and Banker's scheme differ in so many ways, not the least of which was where the plays were intended to be forced. Back at ya: http://journalstar.com/sports/huskers/life-in-the-red/banker-weighs-in-on-easy-scheme-talk/article_5ccc3932-4436-11e5-8ba4-339018a4509d.html Your turn...... “And I’d have cohorts of mine say, ‘Hey, how do you guys get away with playing one front and two coverages?’ ” Banker recalled. “And I’d say, ‘Well, I don’t necessarily have an answer for that, but more is not necessarily better sometimes.’ ” http://www.omaha.com/huskers/banker-s-plan-keep-husker-defense-simple-and-fast/article_a5e63ed1-06e0-593b-b7b1-cd4d038a79c8.html ''You still have to do your assignment. It's not all free reign,'' he said. ''But it's free reign as far as what you do to get to your assignment, if that makes sense.'' Banker said, ''I hear the players say, `Hey, we're free in the system,' or the system is like being in elementary school or something like that. I don't know whether to take it as a compliment or `you don't know what you're doing.' I'm glad they feel good about it, whatever it is.'' http://www.si.com/college-football/2015/04/02/ap-fbc-nebraska-banker This is really silly. I challenged you to find one quote, anywhere, where Banker or any member of the staff said the D scheme was going to be simple and the best you can do is quotes that don't even address it. So keep posting irrelevant articles that don't address my challenge, and I'll match you with articles that refute you. You know what is really weird? I have had problems with some of the play-calling, almost all of which was offensive. But you have such an irrational agenda against this staff that I refuse to agree with anything you post. You remind me of a psycho girlfriend who can't let go..... You don't think the quote I posted shows Banker claiming his defense is simple? He's bragging about only having one front and two coverages. But keep moving the goalposts if it makes you feel better. Not sure how to move goal posts so I'll ask an expert: GBRedneck, how do you move goalposts? Oh, let the record show that you STILL haven't come up with a source stating that Banker or any member of the staff said the scheme was going to be simple>>>>>>>>>that goalpost hasn't budged. Your turn. So you're looking for an exact quote of "the scheme was going to be simple"? The quote I just gave had Banker bragging about his 1 front-2 coverages defense. He was touting the simplicity. You're moving the goalposts. Also, from January on, the media line was "Banker to simplify the D". Banker did nothing to dispute that, in fact he seemed quite proud of it. Until Banderas made the "high school" comment. Then he went into damage control. And now everyone sees you exposed. Every single post I asked you to provide a source where Banker or any member of the staff said the scheme was going to be simple. Every. Single. Post. No one, least of all me, disputed that Banker wanted to simplify the defense from BP's paralysis-by-analysis. What got me started in this sorry ass chain of exchanges with you was the assertion that Banker said it was going to be simple. THAT WAS NEVER SAID BY BANKER. By Bando, yes. By Gerry, yes, By Collins and Valentine, yes. Banker or the staff, no. But you knew that. I cited sources where Banker responded to the players by saying that it wasn't as simple as they thought. You knew that all along, which is why after three demands by me to cite your source you always dodged it, moved the goalposts, so to speak. I could have just ended this a while back and stopped responding to your trolling, something you have been called out for on this board previously. Maybe I should have. For sure I'm done with you for now because you're boring me. But understand this, the next time you troll, me or someone else is going to call you out, not necessarily because I disagree with some point you're making, but because your agenda has no reason, no balance and no place on a board for fans of Nebraska sports.

http://www.omaha.com/huskers/banker-s-scheme-makes-life-easier-for-husker-front-seven/article_ff19c577-9593-5f7b-944c-938cdd918362.html If only Banker had said that.......

Do you have a tapeworm? A turd in your pocket? Who is "we"? Gerry stated that the defense was simplified Banker addressed that by stating that the D was not going to be all that simple. Now I'll wait for you to show any proof that any member of the staff said that the defense was going to be more simple. http://nebraska.247sports.com/Bolt/Banker-favors-simple-aggressive-scheme-34579005 And there's a lot more where that came from. You're making this too easy for me. Note the bolded above. I carefully avoided saying that Banker said the defensive scheme was going to be simple, so you can cherry-pick your stories all you want to. Banker has said many times that he wanted to D to be simpler and faster. He never said simple. BP's scheme and Banker's scheme differ in so many ways, not the least of which was where the plays were intended to be forced. Back at ya: http://journalstar.com/sports/huskers/life-in-the-red/banker-weighs-in-on-easy-scheme-talk/article_5ccc3932-4436-11e5-8ba4-339018a4509d.html Your turn...... “And I’d have cohorts of mine say, ‘Hey, how do you guys get away with playing one front and two coverages?’ ” Banker recalled. “And I’d say, ‘Well, I don’t necessarily have an answer for that, but more is not necessarily better sometimes.’ ” http://www.omaha.com/huskers/banker-s-plan-keep-husker-defense-simple-and-fast/article_a5e63ed1-06e0-593b-b7b1-cd4d038a79c8.html ''You still have to do your assignment. It's not all free reign,'' he said. ''But it's free reign as far as what you do to get to your assignment, if that makes sense.'' Banker said, ''I hear the players say, `Hey, we're free in the system,' or the system is like being in elementary school or something like that. I don't know whether to take it as a compliment or `you don't know what you're doing.' I'm glad they feel good about it, whatever it is.'' http://www.si.com/college-football/2015/04/02/ap-fbc-nebraska-banker This is really silly. I challenged you to find one quote, anywhere, where Banker or any member of the staff said the D scheme was going to be simple and the best you can do is quotes that don't even address it. So keep posting irrelevant articles that don't address my challenge, and I'll match you with articles that refute you. You know what is really weird? I have had problems with some of the play-calling, almost all of which was offensive. But you have such an irrational agenda against this staff that I refuse to agree with anything you post. You remind me of a psycho girlfriend who can't let go..... You don't think the quote I posted shows Banker claiming his defense is simple? He's bragging about only having one front and two coverages. But keep moving the goalposts if it makes you feel better. Not sure how to move goal posts so I'll ask an expert: GBRedneck, how do you move goalposts? Oh, let the record show that you STILL haven't come up with a source stating that Banker or any member of the staff said the scheme was going to be simple>>>>>>>>>that goalpost hasn't budged. Your turn.

Agree 100%. This staff has been in place for years and must be held accountable for decades (since 2001) of mismanagement. Yeah.

Do you have a tapeworm? A turd in your pocket? Who is "we"? Gerry stated that the defense was simplified Banker addressed that by stating that the D was not going to be all that simple. Now I'll wait for you to show any proof that any member of the staff said that the defense was going to be more simple. http://nebraska.247sports.com/Bolt/Banker-favors-simple-aggressive-scheme-34579005 And there's a lot more where that came from. You're making this too easy for me. Note the bolded above. I carefully avoided saying that Banker said the defensive scheme was going to be simple, so you can cherry-pick your stories all you want to. Banker has said many times that he wanted to D to be simpler and faster. He never said simple. BP's scheme and Banker's scheme differ in so many ways, not the least of which was where the plays were intended to be forced. Back at ya: http://journalstar.com/sports/huskers/life-in-the-red/banker-weighs-in-on-easy-scheme-talk/article_5ccc3932-4436-11e5-8ba4-339018a4509d.html Your turn...... “And I’d have cohorts of mine say, ‘Hey, how do you guys get away with playing one front and two coverages?’ ” Banker recalled. “And I’d say, ‘Well, I don’t necessarily have an answer for that, but more is not necessarily better sometimes.’ ” http://www.omaha.com/huskers/banker-s-plan-keep-husker-defense-simple-and-fast/article_a5e63ed1-06e0-593b-b7b1-cd4d038a79c8.html ''You still have to do your assignment. It's not all free reign,'' he said. ''But it's free reign as far as what you do to get to your assignment, if that makes sense.'' Banker said, ''I hear the players say, `Hey, we're free in the system,' or the system is like being in elementary school or something like that. I don't know whether to take it as a compliment or `you don't know what you're doing.' I'm glad they feel good about it, whatever it is.'' http://www.si.com/college-football/2015/04/02/ap-fbc-nebraska-banker This is really silly. I challenged you to find one quote, anywhere, where Banker or any member of the staff said the D scheme was going to be simple and the best you can do is quotes that don't even address it. So keep posting irrelevant articles that don't address my challenge, and I'll match you with articles that refute you. You know what is really weird? I have had problems with some of the play-calling, almost all of which was offensive. But you have such an irrational agenda against this staff that I refuse to agree with anything you post. You remind me of a psycho girlfriend who can't let go.....

Not sure I'm the best to answer this but blanket statements about defenses being either simple or complex are kinda dumb, it seems to me. Some guys like to live off stunts and twists, engaging the D line more while the back two zones play pretty conventional defense. Some guys like to blitz with LBs or a combination of LBs, corners and safeties, leaving the D line to plug holes. BP lived on an active backfield and relatively vanilla D line. Banker seems to like to force offensive plays into the middle and get the LBs and corners engaged more. BP's scheme gave corners support over the top more with safeties, but at the expense of run plays (MELVIN GORDAN SCORES AGAIN!!!!!!). Each philosophy has its own advantages and each its own drawbacks. You have to recruit to your philosophy, which is why it is mostly ignorant to bitch too much in a new staff's first one to three years. They need a chance to get their guys in, and then be judged on the results.

Do you have a tapeworm? A turd in your pocket? Who is "we"? Gerry stated that the defense was simplified Banker addressed that by stating that the D was not going to be all that simple. Now I'll wait for you to show any proof that any member of the staff said that the defense was going to be more simple. http://nebraska.247sports.com/Bolt/Banker-favors-simple-aggressive-scheme-34579005 And there's a lot more where that came from. You're making this too easy for me. Note the bolded above. I carefully avoided saying that Banker said the defensive scheme was going to be simple, so you can cherry-pick your stories all you want to. Banker has said many times that he wanted to D to be simpler and faster. He never said simple. BP's scheme and Banker's scheme differ in so many ways, not the least of which was where the plays were intended to be forced. Back at ya: http://journalstar.com/sports/huskers/life-in-the-red/banker-weighs-in-on-easy-scheme-talk/article_5ccc3932-4436-11e5-8ba4-339018a4509d.html Your turn......

Do you have a tapeworm? A turd in your pocket? Who is "we"? Gerry stated that the defense was simplified Banker addressed that by stating that the D was not going to be all that simple. Now I'll wait for you to show any proof that any member of the staff said that the defense was going to be more simple.

True. Better jimmies and joes can make up for some coaching deficits. Yep. Suh, Lavonte David, Ameer, Rex, Helu, etc. definitely proved that. You're trying too hard. You, of all people, are saying this? Saints preserve us.......

This. Not enough facepalms for these two comments. Just..........